The meaning of πίστις Χριστοῦ in Paul (Gal. 2.16, 20; 3.22; Rom. 3.22, 26; Phil. 3.9) continues to be the subject of controversial debate in Pauline scholarship. Should the genitive construction be understood objectively as ‘faith in Christ’ or subjectively as ‘the faith(fulness) of Christ’? The prevalent either/or character of the discussion is increasingly proving to be an impediment to finding a solution to this issue. A minority view, the so-called ‘third view’, seeks to move beyond the subjective-objective dichotomy by accounting for the intrinsic complexity of the Greek genitive and pointing to the event-character of πίστις in Paul. The primary reference text for this ‘third view’ is Gal. 3.23-26, which exhibits an altogether remarkable language of faith and envisages πίστις as ‘coming’ (ἔρχεσθαι) and as ‘being revealed’ (ἀποκαλύπτεσθαι). This article reviews the exegetical status quaestionis and argues that Paul does not regard πίστις Χριστοῦ as an individual disposition or character (either Christ’s or that of the believer), but rather as an eschatological event. The aim is not to offer a comprehensive analysis of the verses in question, but to advance exegetical and theological support for the ‘third view’ and to point to its considerable explanatory power in our effort for a more nuanced appreciation of Paul’s language of faith.

No abstract

No abstract

Contemporary scholarship holds, almost unanimously, that Johannes Haußleiter was the first to suggest that Paul's expression Χ should be interpreted as the 'faith(fulness) of Christ'. His article of 1891 is said to have initiated the ongoing debate, now more current than ever. Such an assessment of the controversy's origins, however, cannot be maintained. Beginning already in the 1820s a surprisingly rich and nuanced discussion of the ambivalent Pauline phrase can be seen. Then, a number of scholars from rather different theological camps already considered and favoured the subjective genitive. The present study seeks to recover the semantic, grammatical, syntactical, and theological aspects put forward in this past (and 'lost') exegetical literature. Such retrospection, while not weighing the pros and cons for the subjective or the objective interpretation, helps put into perspective the arguments and responses in the present debate. Then and now, scholars' contextualization of their readings is in keeping with their respective diverse theological and philosophical frames of reference.

This article offers an exegetical-theological analysis of Rom. 4:20: 'No distrust made him waver (diakr0nesqai) concerning the promise of God' (NRSV). It challenges the common assumption that our customary descriptions and definitions of 'doubt' may be applied-via negativa-to the attitude or disposition of Abraham. When Paul uses the word diakr0nesqai in this context, he does not intend to say that Abraham's disposition was free from doubt, uncertainty, or hesitation. Rather, Paul had in mind that Abraham did not oppose God in a presumptuous attitude, offend him through conceited enquiries, or question him in order to overturn his word. This interpretation counters the exegetical communis opinio, but has veritable precursors-John Chrysostom, John Calvin, and Markus Barth-and, at the same time, conforms well to the line of thought of Paul's letter. The object of Paul's accusation against Greeks and Jews (Romans 1-3) is less an intrapersonal contradiction or inconsistency rather than an interpersonal conflict between God and human being. Significantly, the contextual argument is supported by a lexicographical fact: The meaning 'to doubt' for diakr0nesqai is unattested prior to the New Testament; in classical/Hellenistic Greek the verb comprises, inter alia, the notions of 'separation' and 'dispute'.